How democracy should be working
Jun 17, 2004
THE recent tongue-lashing in the media between the IGG Jotham Tumwesigye, and Solicitor General (SG), Lucian Tibaruha over operational supremacy calls for deeper reflections.
OPINION
Ofwono Opondo
THE recent tongue-lashing in the media between the IGG Jotham Tumwesigye, and Solicitor General (SG), Lucian Tibaruha over operational supremacy calls for deeper reflections.
And President Yoweri Museveni and Justice Minister Janat Mukwaya’s intervention, although intended to calm the waters was misrepresented by various parties, the media inclusive.
But most worrying and to keep watch on is the fact that it is spreading in public administration as seen from the tongue waging among MPs, between MPs and the executive, and even in the judiciary.
Of course, contention for balance of power is bound to happen and is healthy for political development.
The only problem in the current debate is the falsehoods, posturing and fabrication by some leaders to gain an upper hand.
The bickering actually makes one wonder whether we are committed and ready for full democracy. It is sometimes threatening to imagine our safety if some of these leaders were to become president, an all powerful institution. For instance, in spite of the fact that legislative power rests with Parliament, much of the legislation in Parliament originates from the President and is assented by him to become law.
As the principal executive and political leader, Museveni influences public opinion and thereby legislation in Parliament.
The President has the prime minister as leader of government business in Parliament, assisted by ministers and a host of executive aides to keep abreast with parliamentary activities and persuading MPs to support government policies.
Even in the judicial sphere, the President appoints all top-most officers with parliamentary approval, and has powers to grant full and unconditional pardon to anyone convicted by courts. In addition, the President has about 100,000 active, armed personnel under his direct control!
Thus, to have viable democracy, there is need to pacify the personal egos of politicians, reject partial interpretation of the laws and accept the fundamental changes Uganda has undergone.
It is becoming clearer why Salaamu Musumba, Ben Wacha and company, who posture as democrats, should loathe being replaced in committees by their colleagues.
They don’t seem to realise that their rules of procedure were meant to regulate the internal working of Parliament and not to protect specific office bearers.
And somehow, Musumba convinced herself as a performer without realising the extent to which her abrasiveness had compromised the integrity of the presidential and foreign affairs committee.
That is why, sensing defeat, she cast logic aside to drag in Speaker Edward Ssekandi into a non-existent plot to oust him in a desperate but futile bid to lure sympathies. Musumba has now been proved alarmist and vulnerable because she was thrown out without the rules being changed as she had alleged.
Even then, her outburst was strange because Parliament has powers over its own internal rules.
US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Marshall (1801-35) said, “The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake the Constitution. It is the creature of their will and lives only by their will.â€
Blackmailing Ssekandi, Parliament and Uganda through false alarm bells ought to be resisted, if not ignored.
Two weeks earlier, Musumba claimed that in the 2006 election, a presidential candidate “must†come from the “Eastâ€. But while tribes can take turns in the presidency, one may ask, how east is east anyway? In any case, some of those complaining have spouses as ministers in the Government they criticise!
Back to the rumbling between Tumwesigye and Tibaruha over a file containing claims for compensation of James Musinguzi Garuga and others.
While Tumwesigye and Tibaruha are supposed to be lawyers of professional and public repute, they failed to resolve this matter until it became a public embarrassment.
As lawyers, both must have read President Richard Nixon’s attempt to hide behind presidential privilege during the famous “Watergate scandal†in the 1970s.
When the Senate demanded that he surrenders the tapes of his conversation, Nixon adamantly refused and argued on August 15, 1973: “If I were to make public these tapes, containing blunt and candid remarks on many subjects, the confidentiality of the office would always be suspect. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.â€
Well, eventually the US Court of Appeal ruled against him, stating “Sovereignty remains at all times with the people and they do not forfeit through elections or legislation the rights to have the law construed against and applied to every citizen,†ordering Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes.
So, instead of the ping pong, if Tumwesigye had asked court to compel Tibaruha to surrender the disputed file, that would have not only settled the matter but also advanced a democratic rule of law.
Alternatively, Tibaruha, should have sought protection from courts, rather than seeking protection from Maj. Kakoza Mutale if he thought Tumwesigye was being unlawfully intrusive.
After all, Mutale had earlier on sought and obtained protection from courts when he realised that Tumwesigye had overstepped his power by asking Museveni to sack him as an adviser when he didn’t declare his wealth in time.
Both Mutale and Fox Odoi’s constitutional court victories were a reward for democracy and not a mockery as newspapers argued.
Ofwono Opondo
THE recent tongue-lashing in the media between the IGG Jotham Tumwesigye, and Solicitor General (SG), Lucian Tibaruha over operational supremacy calls for deeper reflections.
And President Yoweri Museveni and Justice Minister Janat Mukwaya’s intervention, although intended to calm the waters was misrepresented by various parties, the media inclusive.
But most worrying and to keep watch on is the fact that it is spreading in public administration as seen from the tongue waging among MPs, between MPs and the executive, and even in the judiciary.
Of course, contention for balance of power is bound to happen and is healthy for political development.
The only problem in the current debate is the falsehoods, posturing and fabrication by some leaders to gain an upper hand.
The bickering actually makes one wonder whether we are committed and ready for full democracy. It is sometimes threatening to imagine our safety if some of these leaders were to become president, an all powerful institution. For instance, in spite of the fact that legislative power rests with Parliament, much of the legislation in Parliament originates from the President and is assented by him to become law.
As the principal executive and political leader, Museveni influences public opinion and thereby legislation in Parliament.
The President has the prime minister as leader of government business in Parliament, assisted by ministers and a host of executive aides to keep abreast with parliamentary activities and persuading MPs to support government policies.
Even in the judicial sphere, the President appoints all top-most officers with parliamentary approval, and has powers to grant full and unconditional pardon to anyone convicted by courts. In addition, the President has about 100,000 active, armed personnel under his direct control!
Thus, to have viable democracy, there is need to pacify the personal egos of politicians, reject partial interpretation of the laws and accept the fundamental changes Uganda has undergone.
It is becoming clearer why Salaamu Musumba, Ben Wacha and company, who posture as democrats, should loathe being replaced in committees by their colleagues.
They don’t seem to realise that their rules of procedure were meant to regulate the internal working of Parliament and not to protect specific office bearers.
And somehow, Musumba convinced herself as a performer without realising the extent to which her abrasiveness had compromised the integrity of the presidential and foreign affairs committee.
That is why, sensing defeat, she cast logic aside to drag in Speaker Edward Ssekandi into a non-existent plot to oust him in a desperate but futile bid to lure sympathies. Musumba has now been proved alarmist and vulnerable because she was thrown out without the rules being changed as she had alleged.
Even then, her outburst was strange because Parliament has powers over its own internal rules.
US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Marshall (1801-35) said, “The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake the Constitution. It is the creature of their will and lives only by their will.â€
Blackmailing Ssekandi, Parliament and Uganda through false alarm bells ought to be resisted, if not ignored.
Two weeks earlier, Musumba claimed that in the 2006 election, a presidential candidate “must†come from the “Eastâ€. But while tribes can take turns in the presidency, one may ask, how east is east anyway? In any case, some of those complaining have spouses as ministers in the Government they criticise!
Back to the rumbling between Tumwesigye and Tibaruha over a file containing claims for compensation of James Musinguzi Garuga and others.
While Tumwesigye and Tibaruha are supposed to be lawyers of professional and public repute, they failed to resolve this matter until it became a public embarrassment.
As lawyers, both must have read President Richard Nixon’s attempt to hide behind presidential privilege during the famous “Watergate scandal†in the 1970s.
When the Senate demanded that he surrenders the tapes of his conversation, Nixon adamantly refused and argued on August 15, 1973: “If I were to make public these tapes, containing blunt and candid remarks on many subjects, the confidentiality of the office would always be suspect. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.â€
Well, eventually the US Court of Appeal ruled against him, stating “Sovereignty remains at all times with the people and they do not forfeit through elections or legislation the rights to have the law construed against and applied to every citizen,†ordering Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes.
So, instead of the ping pong, if Tumwesigye had asked court to compel Tibaruha to surrender the disputed file, that would have not only settled the matter but also advanced a democratic rule of law.
Alternatively, Tibaruha, should have sought protection from courts, rather than seeking protection from Maj. Kakoza Mutale if he thought Tumwesigye was being unlawfully intrusive.
After all, Mutale had earlier on sought and obtained protection from courts when he realised that Tumwesigye had overstepped his power by asking Museveni to sack him as an adviser when he didn’t declare his wealth in time.
Both Mutale and Fox Odoi’s constitutional court victories were a reward for democracy and not a mockery as newspapers argued.